Guidry v. Glazer's Distributors of Louisiana, Inc.
49 So. 3d 586
| La. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Guidry, a female employee, was terminated from Glazer’s for failing to report to her scheduled night shift after seeking but not receiving permission for funeral attendance.
- She was one of two women in Glazer’s warehouse at the time of termination and worked the 5:00 p.m.–8:30 a.m. shift.
- Guidry informed her supervisor of a family funeral; permission to miss the shift was not granted, and she did not return to work after the funeral.
- Two coworkers reportedly attended the funeral and returned; Guidry’s action followed a request for permission and absence without explicit approval.
- Glazer’s claimed Guidry’s termination was based on insubordination and violation of company policy; Guidry alleged gender-based discrimination, including comments by a supervisor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guidry proved a prima facie case of discrimination | Guidry—Guidry shows protected class, qualification, adverse action, and similarly situated comparators. | Glazer’s—no appropriate similarly situated male comparators; no prima facie case. | Guidry failed to establish a prima facie case due to lack of true comparators. |
| Whether comparators were sufficiently similar to Guidry | Guidry identfied LeBlanc and Howard as comparators who were not terminated. | LeBlanc and Howard were not engaged in the same conduct; they received lesser discipline. | No valid similarly situated comparators; Guidry cannot sustain prima facie case. |
| Whether Glazer’s proffered reason for termination was legitimate and non-discriminatory | Guidry contends pretext, citing discriminatory motive from supervisor’s comments. | Termination based on insubordination and policy violation; stated reason legitimate. | Reason deemed legitimate on its face; Guidry failed to show pretext. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given potential pretext | Summary judgment inappropriate due to possible motive and proximity of comments. | No genuine issue of material fact; pretext not shown. | Summary judgment affirmed; no material fact showing pretext. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co., 977 So.2d 839 (La. 2008) (de novo review standard for summary judgments in employment cases)
- Supreme Serv. & Specialty Co., Inc. v. Sonny Greer, 958 So.2d 634 (La. 2007) (guidance on summary judgment standards under Louisiana law)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (legitimacy of reason and pretext framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes framework for circumstantial discrimination evidence)
- Willis v. Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc., 445 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2006) (prima facie framework and burden shifting)
- Ross v. Univ. of Tex. at San Antonio, 139 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 1998) (prima facie proof of discrimination)
- Vadie v. Miss. State Univ., 218 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2000) (pretext framework in Fifth Circuit)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1985) (factors for evidence evaluation in discrimination cases)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (material fact standard and mixed evidence)
- Weingartner v. La. IceGators, 854 So.2d 898 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2003) (determination of material facts in summary judgment)
- Lester v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 514 F.Supp.2d 866 (W.D. La. 2007) (similarly situated analysis for comparators)